(Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

What's the No. 1 job of a quarterback? To win.

There's no getting around that.

We as football fans can criticize guys like Ben Roethlisberger or Joe Flacco, who don't put up elite numbers but manage to win games. The two have a combined starter's record of 71-39, which any team would gladly take.

When we think of elite quarterbacks, the guys we think of include Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees, Donovan McNabb, Kurt Warner, Jay Cutler, or even Aaron Rodgers. Among these, it's certain Brady and Manning will make the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Warner, Cutler, and Rodgers are all guys who are debatable or not quite good enough to be Hall of Famers.

McNabb and Warner are especially interesting cases. In McNabb's career, the former No. 2 overall pick has 199 touchdowns, 91 interceptions, over 29,000 passing yards, 3,166 rushing, an 82-45-1 starter's record, and nine playoff wins. I'm sure that's exactly what the Eagles expected when they took him so high in the 1999 NFL draft.

Warner wasn't even drafted coming out of Northern Iowa. Kurt has had inconsistent success. He was an NFL MVP in 1999 and 2001, and was in the running last year, but that's really all. In his career, he has a 60-46 record, 29,756 yards, 188 touchdowns and 118 interceptions.

So who's better? I don't think it's even debatable. Donovan McNabb, and by a country mile. Here are five reasons why:

Stats: When you think of Warner, you think of stats. He puts up good statistics when he's played, and won the MVP award in 1999 and 2001. But since then, he's been consistently inconsistent. Get this: From 1999 to 2001, he had over 12,000 passing yards, 98 touchdowns, 53 interceptions, and a 27-8 starter's record. That's a Hall of Famer.

But from 2002 to 2007, he had 11,357 yards, 54 touchdowns, and 47 interceptions. That's a middle-of-the-pack quarterback. It's that inconsistency that has plagued him.

People talk about McNabb's ability to run the ball, but from a passing standpoint, McNabb is also better. Warner has 188 touchdowns and 118 interceptions. Both quarterbacks have been in the league for 11 seasons, so they have the exact same sample size.

McNabb in his career has 29,663 yards, 199 touchdowns, 91 interceptions, and 27 300-yard games. While Kurt has 50, that's very flawed. Who has McNabb had to throw to? Greg Lewis? Todd Pinkston? Freddie Mitchell? L.J. Smith? James Thrash? Those five "targets" combine for 924 catches, 12,007 yards, and 67 touchdowns in a combined 35 years of experience.

So, their average year was as follows: 26 receptions, 343 yards and two touchdowns. Warner, however, has had Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Larry Fitzgerald, and Anquan Boldin, who combine for 2,508 receptions, 41,060 yards and 256 touchdowns in 40 years of experience. So, Warner's targets' average years are as follows: 63 receptions, 1,027 yards and six touchdowns.

Wins: Like I said earlier, the No. 1 job of the quarterback is to win. And McNabb has done that. Consistently and to the point where everyone expects it or it's a huge disappointment.

In his career, he's 82-45-1 as a starter, and he's been a winner pretty much every year. In fact, he's only had one losing season in his career.

Kurt Warner, however, is 60-46 as a starter with superior talent surrounding him. Also, he's been more consistent. To start his career, Warner had three great seasons, as he started 27-8. But in the next six seasons, he had a 13-29 record, including a 8-18 record with Arizona, where he had Boldin and Fitzgerald to throw to.

Warner has been much better in the playoffs. There's no getting around that. Warner is 8-3 in the playoffs, while McNabb is 9-7. Warner has even beaten McNabb's Eagles once, in the 2008 NFC Championship. But by my count, McNabb has only played one or two bad games in postseason play.

In 2003, he was 10-for-22 with three INTs against the Carolina Panthers, and has 23 TD, 16 INT in his playoff career. And while Warner has been slightly better (26 TD, 13 INT), and has a ring, which McNabb doesn't, that's really the only place in which Warner has an edge.

Where he took the team: While the motivational leaders on NFL teams are usually linebackers, the quarterbacks must lead by example. They need to be very coachable, able to rebound from awful games, and more.

Quarterbacking at the NFL level is no walk in the park. When McNabb was drafted, the Eagles were a terrible team. In the two years leading up to Philadelphia selecting him, the Eagles were a combined 9-22-1. But since, they are 100-63. Hands down, they are the NFC team of the decade.

When McNabb's been healthy, they haven't had a losing season.

But Warner? It's much different. Sure, he guided the Rams from a 4-12 record in '98 to 13-3 the next year, but that's an exception. Why does nobody point out that the Rams finished fourth in defense?

Also, put an NFL-worthy quarterback in that system, and I can pretty much guarantee he posts MVP numbers. So he did. But when he went to the Giants, they were an inconsistent team. And when he left, they were just that: an inconsistent team. And when he joined the Cardinals, they were a mediocre team with two great receivers.

And now, they are simply an above average team who wouldn't compete in any other division.

Habitual year: In a quarterback, you want consistency. It's nice to have a quarterback who posts monster numbers from time to time, but it's a heck of a lot nicer to have one who posts good, solid numbers every year. McNabb is the latter.

Looking at his career stats, he's never really had a "bad" year. He's never had a ridiculous season where he put his name into the record books, but he's been great every year and has won games. What more can you ask out of a quarterback?

His average year consists of 233 completions in 395 attempts, 2,697 yards, 18 touchdowns, eight interceptions, an 86.2 rating, on top of 288 rushing yards and three touchdowns on the ground.

Warner, on the other hand, is slightly below average when you look at his habitual year. He's had years like 1999 (4,353 yards, 41 TD), 2001 (4,830 yards, 36 TD), and even 2008 (4,583 yards, 30 TD), but that's it, really. Looking at his career stats, he's only had three really good years, seven bad ones, and another is to be determined.

His average year consists of 2,705 yards, 17 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. When you take out three of his huge years, his habitual year is pretty bad, with 1,999 yards, ten touchdowns and nine interceptions. Kurt Warner—call him the three-year wonder.

Head-to-head: So what's the icing on the cake? Is it that Donovan has better stats overall? Is it that Donovan actually wins games? Is it that Donovan is actually a consistent quarterback? Is it that Donovan has done better with lesser talent around him? No, no, no, and no.

It's that McNabb has faced Warner multiple times, and has absolutely owned him. In the Rams magical 1999 year in which they went 13-3, you'll never guess who one of their losses came against. The Eagles. McNabb had three touchdowns, while Warner was 12-for-24. In 2002, same opponent, same story. Eagles 10, Rams 3. Kurt gets picked twice. Good night to Kurt's Rams career.

In 2004, this time with the Giants, he faced McNabb again, losing this time by a score of 31-17. McNabb had a legendary game, with 330 yards and four touchdowns, while Kurt was a pedestrian 16-for-28 with no touchdowns.

In 2008, Kurt's year in which he dominated for the Cardinals, McNabb and the Eagles pulled down the Cardinals' pants and spanked them. McNabb had four touchdowns and Kurt had three picks. Kurt has beat the Eagles once in regular season play, losing four times.

Case closed.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?